From: William S. <wst...@po...> - 2002-10-28 19:15:26
|
Good day, David, On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Coulson wrote: > William Stearns wrote: > > I'm running into the same problem. > > Zaphod (see > > http://www.stearns.org/slartibartfast/uml-coop.current.html for more info) > > is running into the same problem; the tcp connection finishes, but no > > userspace app can be forked (I'm guessing on that part). I have a vague > > suspicion it _might_ be related to a problem we had on thhe same host > > where running ps/w/top (on an already open ssh connection) never returns; > > Jeff was kind enough to narrow that down to a problem with the host kernel > > task lock. > > This is something I've battled with for well over a month with 2.4.19 > and 2.4.20-pre kernels. They seem to get into a state where they can't > fork processes or do very much, but kernel-level stuff like TCP > connections and pings will work. As you said, Jeff tracked this down to > a mm_sem locking issue, but I don't know if/where it has been fixed. I'm not aware of any progress on it, but that certainly doesn't equate to "still broken". > > (To everyone, not just Matthew) Is there any chance that we're > > exposing some race in the host kernel with repeated process name changes > > or some other facet of uml? </mode straw-grasping=off> > > Process name changing? Where the uml kernel changes "httpd" to "./uml-kernel-name (umid) [httpd]" > > No promises, but David Coulson was seeing daily lockups with > > 2.4.20-pre9 which went away with 2.4.20-pre10. > > Indeed. For the record, I'm running 2.4.20-pre10, along with Rik Van > Riel's fairsched patch. Correct, sorry about that. > > I just updated Zaphod from > > the 2.4.20-pre7-ac2 to 2.4.20-pre11. I have my fingers crossed. > > Hell, I have my _toes_ crossed. > > You don't want to know what I have crossed ;-) And on that point we are in _complete_ agreement. ;-) Cheers, - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to Microsoft? A: Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works. -- Steve Ballmer, http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wst...@po...). Mason, Buildkernel, named2hosts, and ipfwadm2ipchains are at: http://www.stearns.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |